User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Istrian exodus

Hi;

I recently filed a dispute called "Istrian Exodus", and it's been without a mediator for a while now. Could you kindly take on the role of mediator? Whilst I provided a 3O in it, I think it would be a blatant violation of Wikipedia:COI were I then to mediate the same dispute on DRN.

Kindly;

--The Historian (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was giving serious consideration to closing that listing because DIREKTOR has not given an opening statement, but I now see that he's been off-wiki for a couple of days, but is now back. I'm still not sure that I don't have a COI with him, as well. Finally, I'm pretty wrapped up with the Morgellons dispute right now. Let's wait to see if he joins in. If he does then perhaps one of the other regulars at DRN will take it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Theonesean's talk page.
Message added 21:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

theonesean 21:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for closing the waste-of-time request at DRN earlier. I love helping newbies, will bend over backwards to do so, but he never contacted me, never responded to my comments, never made any effort to improve his article. So thanks. theonesean 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The DRN case

Hello. What is the next order of business for this case Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. I'm down for a compromise, if the other editors are willing: The blitzkrieg stays together with the supporting 4-plus citations. Then the succeeding sentence can point out that it is still disputed. The only problem with that is that it may one day get tagged with {{citation needed}} if they don't provide one. They could also put an inline endnote to point out that the term was never used in any orders issued for Citadel; and sources to support this should be easy to find. Although technically, if we follow that logic for the rest of the content in the article, we will have a sea of such endnotes. But I have no objections to its use in this instance if it will resolve the dispute. I wanted to post this suggestion in the noticeboard but I'm not sure if we are still waiting for something or if there is a unique protocol to the resolution of disputes. Especially since my previous replies turned out to be outside the proper protocol. EyeTruth (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I really only intended to drop a comment there, not take on the case. I'll drop a note at the other volunteers' talk pages. They may decide to close the case since one editor has not chosen to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I just took a second look and realized you weren't the main volunteer. For some reason I assumed you were, maybe because you had the largest comment on there. :p. I will buzz the other volunteer, then. Also, I doubt the other editor will be participating since he already declared his loss of interest in continuing the dispute even before I brought it to DRN. EyeTruth (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so what happens now? Can't you take over the dispute resolution or is there a protocol to it? I really don't know the protocols behind all these. At this stage, do I have to take this elsewhere, like formal mediation. Don't know how all this works man. This dispute has slowed the progress of the article for a while now. It will be great to have it cleared up. EyeTruth (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I ordinarily could take the case over, but can't in this particular case due to DRN's neutrality requirements. (I've had past experience with one or more of the editors which could bias my work either positively or negatively.) I've extended its expiration date by a week and I'll post a note on the DRN noticeboard to see if I can get someone to take it. If that doesn't happen, then I'd suggest trying a Request for Comments, since WP:MEDCOM might refuse the case for lack of any real prior dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your use of secondary accounts concerns.

TransporterMan, I mentioned the proposal here, to you, because it became clear to me from your comments on my VP proposal that, back in March, you didn't fully understand what the security problem that could only be addressed with the use of a secondary account was. It seems you thought I was concerned about the actions of regulars on the 3O team, such as yourself. Is that right? Do you see now it's the impact of the irregular 3O suppliers that did and does concern me? Do you understand now, given that and the above? --Elvey (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably didn't see the response I posted a few minutes ago, above, but I'll repeat it here: Elvey, it's not that I don't understand, I do understand, but that I disagree. I really do appreciate you trying in good faith to improve the processes here, but I believe the status quo at 3O is just fine and the use of alternate accounts would merely cause greater problems than it would solve. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly there are upsides and downsides to my proposal, and I accept that resonable people can disagree on it. I was keen to get that answer from you for a different reason, namely your interpretation of this edit. --Elvey (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit stalking, when it is impermissible (in many cases here at WP stalking is permitted, see WP:HOUNDING for the distinction), is best handled directly by a complaint to WP:ANI. If it is, in fact, inappropriate, a sysop will take action to discourage or prevent it; if it is not, or if there is a question about whether or not it is appropriate, then the stalkee needs to just live with it. That's much preferable to the problems which would be caused by allowing sockpuppets or anonymous edits, in my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, a form of hounding is permissible, I know. But do you dispute that edit stalking someone's 3O requests is inappropriate behavior, or at least very likely to be inappropriate, if acted on? Surely you would concede that it perverts the purpose of 3O to provide a 3O that isn't really one? You say WP:ANI is the way to go, and it would be if it could be used for this, but it's useless: How does one detect the sort of edit stalking that I was trying to avoid in order to complain at WP:ANI? In other words, how does a user differentiate 'I disagree with you (too)' from 'I disagree with you (and I'm a puppet)'? I've given some explanation for why it does not appear to be possible, and there was no rebuttal. I'll spell it out in email if you'd like as I'd rather not facilitate sockpuppetry. Or do you actually dispute that I should be able to request a 3O and not get an answer from a puppet? --Elvey (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way

Also - apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Morgellons - You used the cart/horse analogy incorrectly. You wrote "to try to decide how much space and/or weight to give the real-disease theory before deciding whether or not it can be included at all is putting the horse before the cart". It's clear you think that "to try to decide how much space and/or weight to give the real-disease theory before deciding whether or not it can be included at all" is a bad idea. But putting the horse before the cart is a good idea. It's putting the cart before the horse that's a bad idea. The horse pulls the cart; a cart can't pull a horse, and a horse can't push a cart. Am I right? --Elvey (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right, sir, as Ed McMahon would have said. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh. It's ironic that a user named TransporterMan would make this (transport-themed) mistake!  :) --Elvey (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied to your question about eyewitness news reports on my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Falstaff

Thanks. It was a tough choice – either The Church Lady or the Landover Baptist Church! – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Adminship?

Heya TransporterMan. Just been noticing your great work at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It's been a while since your last RfA. What do you think about giving it another try? Feel up to it? -- œ^™ 03:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

YSupport Go Phightins! 03:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the confidence, but I fear that I don't have the content editing experience needed to pass (and my evaluator agrees). I've written another article since that evaluation, Charlene Richard, which is awaiting GA evaluation, but still isn't the kind of heavy-duty editing which the evaluator recommended and I've yet not done much else he's suggested. To tell you the absolute truth, I went into the last nom with the understanding that I was still pretty green and that it had a high likelihood of failure and that if it did indeed fail that it would be no big deal. You may think that I am a wuss by saying this, but I was wrong and it put me into a wiki-depression that took a couple of months to break out of and I don't relish going through it again. I'd just as soon wait until I've done the things necessary to be sure that I can pass before trying it again, as I'm not at all sure that my asbestos britches are up to taking another scorching. If y'all think that I'm being too reserved, I'll be happy to listen to your advice, however. What do you think? Many thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should go with your gut. I can tell you one thing though, I and a number of other admins I've talked to have high confidence in you, and would support. -- œ^™ 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Team_Kaobon

I am unsure if I would be overstepping my bounds, but if the user does not do so on their own volition, would you consider (as a so far uninvolved editor), removing the (what appears to be) advertising from the filing editor's user page? Thanks -- Nbound (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I probably was going to speedy nom it, but someone got there before I did. Though a lot more latitude is allowed for that kind of thing on user pages than elsewhere, that one goes too far an is probably a good nom. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How to file DRN request?

Hello, I don't see instructions on WP:DRN and I see this page blank and protected. I want to file request regarding this dispute on 2002 Gujarat violence. Thanks. neo (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do it through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. I don't know that you'll be able to do it through the mobile (en.m.wikipedia.org) site. In light of the fact that there's already a dispute pending at DRN about that article which isn't attracting a volunteer to respond, I rather doubt that another listing on a different aspect of the problems there will attract any help, either, but you're free to give it a try. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: If the filing has something to do with the matter pending at Wikipedia:RSN#Are UN.2C EU.2C US etc websites reliable sources.3F, the DRN filing will probably be immediately closed due to it pending there. DRN doesn't accept filings on matters pending in other forums. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, my mobile shows blank page. I will try to place request through other method. But that prev listing is no more valid. After that listing, that user has replaced whole article. So it is start from zero. I request User:Darkness Shines to confirm this so that you can close his request. neo (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your second reply. That RSN thread is only about sources. That user Darkness Shines is indirectly saying that even if my sources are usable, he won't allow to include content. 2 volunteers in RSN have said that my sources are usable. How long I should I wait more? neo (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If the dispute you want to list at DRN is unrelated to the matters brought up at RSN, then there's no need to wait at all. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have filed request. But technical requirement is missing. I request you to please fix it. Sorry about it. Thanks. neo (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources are credible?

-Regarding the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, that a mosque by Ruler, Aurangzeb was made, after destructing some part of the temple-

"80 Questions to Understand India", By Murad Ali Baig. [1], "Ayodhya: the case against the temple", by Koenraad Elst, P. 77 - 80.[2]. "Frommer's India" By Pippa de Bruyn, Keith Bain, David Allardice, Shonar Joshi, P. 472 - 473[3], And this news source[4]. Let me know if they are reliable enough, so we can add the information back to article.Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

When I do dispute resolution I do not become an ongoing monitor for the article or articles in question, but only address the particular dispute which was brought to the DR venue. I'd suggest that you propose those sources at the article talk page and see what the other editor thinks of them. If that discussion stalls or proves fruitless after having been extensively discussed, you can then bring the issue to DRN or another DR forum. Let me note in passing that the issue raised by the other editor re conversion vs. same ground in this edit will probably also need to be worked out through discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

disput resolution Morgellons

Responses copied to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Moving forward with C and considered there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to your request for information on relaxing policy. I am out of town at a conference and have not had much time for wikipedia. First thanks for volunteering to mediate this heated topic. Whatever way you decide I very much appreciate the attention you are giving this and your neutrality. I honestly do not want to do anything that opposes WP policy and if the addition of new material conflicts with policy I completely understand. My concern is the bias that I feel the current article has, especially because it does involve health of people. The main article is written as though there is no other POV other than a delusional etiology and I feel the patients with this disorder and the public need to know there are other POVs. A Pub Med search on Morgellons does not provide many, if any, appropriate secondary sources. There aren't any good systematic review articles. There is quite a lot on WP:MEDRS on the use of primary sources and how to use them. This was the section where it says that policy can be relaxed when an area is undergoing active research. I believe there is another mention somewhere else and I will look more thoroughly for it. Again, thanks for volunteering. WP:MEDDATE Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published. Erythema (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC) more on primary medical sources Hi Transporterman, I cannot find anything in WP:MEDRS that indicates that primary resources should not be used when secondary sources are lacking. In the current article on Morgellons very few references are from peer-reviewed medical journals. Of those that are almost all are opinion peices, and of those that are not there are 2 original research. Here's some more on primary resources that seems to indicate that they can be used providing they are used correctly. WP:MEDRS: Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources. Regards Erythema (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiya, any chance you could put a warning shot across Drgao's bow about honoring the mediation controls? He's responding to other peoples' replies in the mediation thread itself and continuing to bring up sources (diff) in the main talk page that you've already decided were insufficient for WP:MEDRS (and WP:SOURCES) standards. Thanks. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened a DRN, but it does not show at the DRN page

I opened a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine , but it does not show at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I might have done a mistake somewhere, but I would like to move it to the proper DRN page. I will appreciate it if you help me please. Ykantor (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is not mentioned yet in the top table, like other DRN's. Ykantor (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, but the regular volunteers at the noticeboard know that the table is not working at the moment. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Brit Morin page

Just wanted to say thanks for stepping in and helping out on Brit Morin #Plagiarism section earlier today. It is much appreciated. JNorman704 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Lyoness

Dear TransporterMan,

I sincerely apologise for the trouble we made you go through and I respect your decision to deem the referenced blog as an 'unreliable source' according to the Wikipedia guidelines. However, I can somehow not wrap my head around the fact that you consider the usage of this blog, in the way it was done in my edit, as a 'reference'. Rather, it was clearly stated that Mr Brear is of this opinion - and this is the blog where he expresses this opinion (to prove that it is in fact his opinion). So, the blog was not used to prove a fact about Lyoness, but rather that a certain opinion exists. I think that simple, but essential distinction should cause it to be exempted from the guidelines you reference.

Thanks again and have a nice day,

Lyoness expert (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Decision

Dear TransporterMan,

Thanks again. I disagree with your decision at DRN, because of what I mentioned above. However, that is not your fault as you did not write these guidelines and therefore I will accept and respect the decision and no longer put this particular passage back in. I do hope this does not set a precedent for LyoNewMedia to start remove anything he/she pleases, so please, if you can, keep an eye on the developments in the article.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Lyoness expert (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I do appreciate your effort to do so, don't be too quick to hold me blameless. While I wasn't around when those guidelines were written, I do fully support them and would be vociferously opposed to any effort to change them in any significant way. I certainly understand the changing way in which information is being communicated and that many folks are now resorting to various means of self-publishing rather than going through traditional forms of publishing. That's great and good, and much of that information is both valuable and true, but folks who do that need to understand that by doing that they are giving up the endorsement that traditional forms of publishing can give. The legal and commercial constraints on traditional publishing require traditional publishers to set high standards to, first, make sure that they don't get sued and, second, to establish a reputation for accuracy and reliability which encourages consumers to buy their stuff. As WP:SPS says, everyone who engages in self-publishing becomes their own expert and it is then up to the reader to determine the reliability and accuracy of what's there. For every blog which publishes Vital Information Which Is God's Own Truth there is another which claims that the Earth Is Flat or that Justin Bieber is the Greatest Human Being Who Ever Lived. All of those claims, when self-published, are opinions: if we let those kinds of opinions into Wikipedia, even if clearly identified as opinions, it would soon devolve into a source of information no better than a supermarket tabloid. We get criticized enough, already, as being a poor-quality, unreliable source. While those claims have been demonstrated to be false, we don't need to make them true. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC) PS: As an example of the problems being caused by open-access publishing, check out this article about the problems being caused by some open-access "scholarly" publications. — TM

Please don't get me wrong, I fully support Wikipedia's guidelines on not publishing material based on unreliable material and I do agree that most personal blogs cannot count as a reliable source. The distinction I have been continuously hinting at is that much like in writing a scientific publication, claims should be at all points validated and preferably qualified as an opinion. Even articles published in major traditional media, such as newspapers, while being check by editors, can contain traces of opinions of the journalists responsible for these articles. Therefore, most of my contributions to the Lyoness article are shaped like: 'Lyoness claims to have 3,000,000 members (ref)' and 'Austrian newspaper reports that expert A considers Lyoness a pyramid scheme (ref)', rather than to say 'Lyoness has 3 million members and is a pyramid scheme - because that could be factually incorrect. In that format, which I think is essential to the objectivity of Wikipedia on persisting phenomena (such as companies) - as contemporary knowledge/facts may be untrue tomorrow, much like in science - I think a reference to the opinion of an influential personal blogger cannot possibly be harmful to the state of the article and the understanding of its readers. Then again, you have decided, and as I said, I will respect and accept your decision.

Lyoness expert (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned concerning the outcome of the Morgellons DRN

Hi TM, as a courtesy notice, you have been mentioned here at WP:RSN. Zad68 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

First, before closing, I would ask that you give it another 24 hours. The two major editors I have a dispute with are Arzel and Anonymous209.6. If you asked them, it might be effective. The dispute has become heated and they might not respond to the message that I left. My only interest is resolving the content dispute and this does need some outside help to do that. That said, what would you suggest as the next step, if they do not respond?Casprings (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not at all sure what you should do next. If they choose not to participate at DRN (and participation in content dispute resolution is always voluntary), then they're not likely to choose to participate at mediation and mediation will be refused by the Mediation Committee unless everyone agrees to participate. (Just for the sake of full disclosure, let me note in passing that I'm a member of the Mediation Committee in addition to working at DRN.) I've not read through the full dispute, but you say you've tried RFC's, which would be my next ordinary suggestion. The best that I can suggest is the technique that some editors use to bring an existing article from rough condition to a GA: Just take one tiny point at a time and work on it. Propose the change on the talk page first, then make the change if no one objects. If they object, work it out through discussion. If you can't, either give up and move on to a different point or try to bring just that tiny point to dispute resolution. (Frankly, even if the other editors had joined in at DRN this time I wouldn't have given your dispute much of a chance in attracting a volunteer to work on it because DR tends to work much better on specific points rather than on complaints that a whole article is in bad shape.) Once that one point is resolved, move on to another. That's the best I've got. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. RFCs were working. I was just using them a lot, which got noticed. Casprings (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DR meta issues

Saw your transclusion and title edits to my DR. Did I do something incorrectly in the creation? I just used the DR form. Were there additional steps I should have done? (Relying on earwig for the notifications) . If there are additional steps, perhaps some request needs to be made to the form maintainers? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing more to do and you did nothing incorrectly. DRN is going through a transition in how it works and we are having to do some things manually. EarwigBot isn't running yet. Sorry for the uncertainty. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The user does not respond to your DRN notice. What can be done?

1. The user Pluto2012 does not respond to your DRN notice of 4 days ago. What can be done further to resolve the issue? BTW I would not like to have someone punished. I just want to resolve the issue.
2. Will it be possible for you to suggest which DRN to choose for another problem with Pluto2012? In my opinion it could be the Npov noticeboard since Pluto selected few incidents that suits him, rather than use an interpretation of a secondary source. Is this Npov DRN the suitable one for this case? Ykantor (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

snd amendment DR

Damn you are fast. I believe everyone involved will prefer the DR to RFC. Certainly the 2 commenters so far, and I believe even the creator of the RFC will as well. Can you reopen pending his reponse of what he thinks about speedy close of the RFC in deference to the DR? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

With the new way DRN works, it will be easy enough to simply reopen the case if that happens. Just let me know if it does and if I'm slow to respond then drop a note at the DRN talkpage pointing to this discussion. If some time passes between now and then, however, I may ask that it be refiled instead due to the possibility that the dramatis personae may have changed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have speedily closed the RFC. All commenters on the RFC so far have indicated that the RFC had issues (including TFD who I think will argue to the opposite argument as myself within the DR), and that DR was more appropriate, and since the opener of the RFC also created the DR, it seems clear that he finds DR an acceptable solution as well. Unless you find fault with my speedy close, I request that you reopen the DR per our earlier discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reopened the listing at DRN, but I'm going to ask you to go to each editor's talk page and leave a note saying something like "Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — ~~~~" or something to that effect, then in your opening statement section at DRN add a note that all editors have been notified of the reopening. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding Drgao (from the Morgellons DRN discussion)

Hi TM, predictably, there's now an ANI discussion that you might be interested in regarding Drgao, and you have been mentioned in it. Although notification was posted to Talk:Morgellons I'm notifying you here because you probably don't have that article Talk page watchlisted. ANI discussion is here, appreciate your participation if you would. Thanks... Zad68 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Turko-Persian War

I am sorry for violating the instructions, can you give one chance more? this is the only way to get this fixed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, good to see some nice people in Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. you already know the issue. -perso-Turkic war- but he don't stop and keep posting on my page. could you tell him to stop please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we both have agreed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'll not argue this WITH you. if there anybody else want to discuss about perso-Turkic war, I'll be here for discussion. but I'm tired your lies, defamations, nationalistic -so-called- sources etc. TransporterMan, please check sources which I shared and check his sources too. and you decide which of us has the point. and HistoryofIran do not bother me again, do not post on my page, ok? I doubt if you understand me but I'm just saying, do not bother me again. BöriShad (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so have no right to control any discussion other than those which take place at one of the dispute resolution forums where I volunteer. I'm afraid y'all are on your own until you can work things out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi TM, Is there any chance that this could be speeded up somehow? The other party in the matter is becoming increasingly uncivil and personal in his comments towards me on Talk:Skyfall‎#Moneypenny's name - revisited the talk page thread. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed this. If I could point out that on the same talk page, SchroCat has described me as "too stupid" to agree with his arguments, and one of his supporters has visited my own talk page to describe my edits as "poxy". Now I'm quite thick skinned so being called names doesn't bother me and nor would I go running to complain about it to anyone - I don't need mollycoddling from Wiki editors that disagree with me. But I won't be accused of being "uncivil" by editors who use such language, and thus cannot take the moral high ground. Nsign (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah - stalking. Nice. Could you provide a diff which points out where I call you stupid please? When you can't find it, I'd be obliged if you remove the accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for that, entirely my error - looking back it was in fact not you but user Cassianto who said I was "too stupid", as well as "malevolent", in addition to calling my edits "poxy". You have merely described me as "snide", "childish", asked me to "grow up" and now accused me of "stalking". Which is, of course, all very civil. Nsign (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I called your accusations (and not you) snide (which they were); I called you childish for this, which I had asked you not to call me: you were being childish, which is also why I told you to grow up: you were (and still are) approaching this in a very uncollegiate way, trying to force your POV onto the issue and not listening to the many and varied voices on the thread trying to explain the situation to you. And that is all before you drop further down the scale of personal abuse with like this. And yes: I will call you following me to this page "stalking": it's exactly what it is.

@TM, sorry your talk page now appears to be a spill over for the more excessive elements of the Skyfall talk. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The accusation of trying to "force my POV" is completely without foundation. This is a debate. A debate that was previously resolved by consensus and RFC, an RFC since violated and now, on my request, taken to dispute resolution for further discussion. That is demonstrably not trying to "force my POV". I'll accept any decision that admin makes, even if I don't agree with it. We have now both used language that can be regarded as "uncivil" - it happens. In the heat of debate, low blows are often exchanged. I don't really mind this as long as the essential points of argument are not obscured by it. By coming here and urging this editor to "hurry things" along by accusing someone of being unpleasant could be seen as a pretty blatant attempt to influence the outcome. Now I'm going to depart this talk page - I recommend you do too, rather than wasting space apologizing for wasting space when you started it in the first place. Nsign (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"blatant attempt to influence the outcome" Another baseless lie: again, provide evidence that is the case or withdraw the accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my last comment was never responded to

no decision was actually made. The discussion was simply closed arbitrarily by you, with my last comment never responded to you by either you or the other editor. Just because you and that other editor (not many people if you notice) want to dogmatically say "French pronunciation should not be mentioned", and just because you want to water down the French involvement in DR's formation, etc, does not mean the discussion was completely over.

This was my last comment that was never answered:

^^^^^^Just to address the point you made above about the years of French rule being "long after" DR's formation. The formation and development is not just referring to the very very start and infancy and fledglingness of DR. It took TIME for DR to fully develop. You're gonna say that in the 1700's DR was 100% formed and settled as a nation, in complete form? I guess though it's a matter of interpretation. But it's not like French ruled over DR from 1899 to 1922 or something. (For example). That would be different. But it was much earlier than that. (Also, it's not like DR has been around for 2000 years or something...or even 1000.) But French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article?^^^^^

You or the other editor never answered that. So I'll ask it again.... French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was irrelevant under Wikipedia rules for the reasons I explained at DRN so requires no response. I said that I would close the listing if you did not provide a reliable source which shows that the French name was used as a significant name for the nation. You did not, so I did. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment may have not been totally relevant to your request or the rules (or the interpretations thereof) but it was relevant to the other editor's comment, that was simply wrong. He was contending that French rule and involvement came so much later (etc)...and that is simply not all that true. Otherwise why would the article itself have the French involvement and rule matter so early in the article?

Regardless at this point...

it remains closed now. Fine. I won't pursue this nonsense. I leave it alone. As your big issue was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and it seems that the discussion was closed prematurely... Also, it wasn't like 10 or 15 people participated. It was really just you, me, and the other user. It's whatever though.

I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Wikipedia should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Help Please

Dear Mr. TransporterMan, I noticed you pasted my note to BullRangifer about the Pseudoscience stub on his User Talk page and he responded that he was trying to get a hold of me, but that I was not responding. I tried to edit the page to add my response, but there is no edit option. I was wondering if you could help me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.130.119 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving a note on his talk page for you, but if you will click here it will open up the edit screen for his talk page. Scroll down to the bottom of the edit field to find the proper section. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually my talk page is permanently protected from IP edits. I have them use this page. In this case, the proper place to deal with this is here:

• Template_talk:Pseudoscience#Undiscussed_deletions

Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for having to put you to the trouble of a correction. Not having been an IP myself since some time in the Cretaceous, I just zoomed right past that and assumed in the back of my head, to the miniscule extent that I thought about it at all, that it probably had something to do with the beta Visual Editor. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank-You

Thank-you for any help you can give in closing out that DRN. I am still waiting on IRC help-(there was no one there)Housewifehader (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR

Guy macon said he would restore the DR after the AN closed (User_talk:Guy_Macon#drn), but has not been responding. Could you restore the DR? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please see my comments there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have renotified the participants. The article has been locked without significant talk discussion, so unless people are wanting to drop out, I don't see the participants having changed much. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Christian Council of Britain

Hi TransporterMan. Thanks for your advice re my DRN request with RevRobertWest on this page re the status of .. Robert West. It couldn't be resolved as the user never responds but you pointed out that honorific titles were not used so I removed 'Rev'. The user has reinserted it. Any suggestions? I assume its not suitable as RFC as advice is clear. Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user and told him that it's disruptive to continue to edit without discussion, after having been asked to discuss. I'd recommend waiting for awhile, say a week or so, and if he has not engaged in discussion, then removing the titles again. If he reverts again without discussing, make another request for discussion on his talk page and wait another week. Do the same thing again, but if he reverts that time, file a report at administrator's noticeboard/incidents (read and follow the instructions at the top of the page first) and an admin may well either block him or do so after giving another warning. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for that. FWIW I have only ever had disputes(monologues?) with SPAs who don't respond on talk pages. JRPG (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis Donaghy

I updated the talk page with my thoughts on this. Silence from User:Phaedrx, and presumably he'll just go back to editing the page about himself and removing COI notices. What now? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's only been a couple of days and he's not edited at all in the interim. Give it a week or so and see if he responds to your comments. If he does not, then say on the talk page that you're going to put it back in, wait another day or two and then do it if he still does not respond. If he does, then take it back to dispute resolution or perhaps file a report at ANI about page ownership. There is no hurry. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll proceed as you suggest (except that I'm not daft enough to stick my fingers into the ANI mousetrap. :-) ). Maybe COIN? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to COIN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Third Opinion Award
		Thank you, I appreciate your prompt and wise opinion on Etymology of Wicca. — HelenOnline 16:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

HelenOnline 16:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome, glad to be of service. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN question

I noticed that WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gospel of the Ebionites is the only dispute on the noticeboard without a discussion. All other recent disputes are either closed or a discussion is underway to some degree, including the disputes that were filed after this one. What is going on here? Ignocrates (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, narrow the scope of the dispute to Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Neutrality tag, which is mostly about content. Ignocrates (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here at WP, and that includes DRN. Sometimes a dispute is listed that no one cares to take. It happens from time to time. If it is closed the closing volunteer ought to make some recommendations at to what to do next. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for offering your well worded incites and defusing the situation at Talk:Etymology_of_Wicca faster than anyone else could have.  —Sowlos  09:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm not the only one passing wikilove. lol

Thank you very much. I'm happy to be able to help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Since you are a DRN expert and the content dispute problem has gone on for months, could you please advise in what to do? Ideally, I'd like some third party to be a mediator in the GITS content dispute because the problem has continued to get worse. I am repeatedly attacked and insulted, my arguments go unanswered by someone who offers "rhetoric" and not policy, and is in the minority both on arguments and numbers. This problem needs to end, I am exhausted with the rampant out of process deletions of notable articles and the smashing together of entire topics in poorly covered and disjointed organization. Given the mounting tensions a go-between and mediator is really needed at this point. Please advise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond at DRN, because what I'm going to say probably ought to be heard by everyone. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Error screen

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50919224/DRfail.png is the screen I get with no edit option using Internet Explorer 10 with Win7.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Though I ordinarily use Firefox, I just checked it using my copy of IE and it worked fine. It must have something to do with your setup. Steven Zhang designed it. You might ask him what may be happening. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I hear IE is shut off for VE edits until they fix the bugs. I may try reboot and see if it is my end. My sys was new last fall but it was on a Sunday so I had to get a low cost HP from Walmart. My normal assembler takes up to a week.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and I am sorry for taking up so much of it. It has failed at ANI, so I doubt RfC will help. ANI resulted in a three month block and RfC will probably cause more blocks. I may take it straight to Arbcom if we can't get consensus on the talk pages after a day or so.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley

I am going to take a break for the day, and get out of the house. I will return later this evening or tomorrow and will probably just re-add myself. I lost perspective pretty badly last night and sleep, food and family has been a good way to get it back. Thanks for the note.--Mark 20:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Good deal, Mark. I'm glad you're hanging in. Thanks for the response. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So I saw what you had to say about my WP:DR request.

I saw that you actually commented on the request. I should have listed all of the users involved in the edit war and I didn't because tbh I thought that the blank that I would type in the users names in would run out of room. So I will refile the dispute or I might try something else. I do not know what to do about this matter beyond this point tbh. Keeby101 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN Closed; Mumbai attack Indian Govt. involvement

You have closed a dispute one subject opened by me, i request that it should be remained opne atleast for 30 days as the poilcy is and please refer the talk page of article where we all users have agreed that we'll not participate as we have already extensively discussed it, and leave the DRN for independent volunteers.--Ali aff (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such policy. (You're probably confusing DRN with requests for comment which do ordinarily stay open 30 days.) I have no idea what you mean by "we all users have agreed that we'll not participate as we have already extensively discussed it, and leave the DRN for independent volunteers" (and I see no such agreement by the other users; I see where you proposed such an agreement and no one answered) and, finally, I don't know what you expect DRN to do as we settle things there through guided discussion and agreement. Feel free to relist it again through the listing form, but if no one else besides you says anything and no volunteer chooses to take the listing, it will just be closed again. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascism

Hi,

Would it be possible for you and Cabe to advise the Fascism crew about methods of resolution?

I proposed that we vote on a new version I am proposing of one section of the entry.

It's clear there won't be consensus.

But already one of them has said that voting is inappropriate.

If there is no consensus possible and if voting is disallowed, how does anyone ever get changes made?

Mryan1451 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Let's wait to see what Capitalismojo has to say at DRN. I've pinged him. While we try to work out disputes at DRN and at other dispute resolution forums, you must bear in mind that "no consensus" is an acceptable position at Wikipedia. Sometimes changes never get made because there isn't ever a clear consensus for them. See WP:CONS#No consensus for policy on this issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, I have replied to your ping at DRN. By the way, I believe from his statements at the talk page that this editor thinks that you have been appointed as a mediator of the talk page to judge the content and his proposed "beta" version of the article. Congratulations! Capitalismojo (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to welcome me to DRN! I'm excited to help out, and will do both of the things you suggested. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank you. Your advice succeeded to move him.

I would like to thank you. When you closed the DRN you proposed: try restoring the material and if the user reverts then file a report at ANI for disputatious editing. I followed your advice successfully. user:pluto2012 was alarmed once I have mentioned the ANI , and suddenly started to reply and discuss the issue. Ykantor (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Please respond. Ignocrates (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw your reply on my talk page. I wasn't asking for your help directly. I was asking if you knew the right person I might contact to get the help I requested. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not clear: Having not worked in that areas, I do not know anyone with that particular skill set. I'm afraid I cannot help. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks anyway. Ignocrates (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote

I know you weren't deeply involved in the DRN regarding blitzkrieg dispute, but you know a thing or two about it and have given an opinion on the issue within the past two months. There is an ongoing poll, suggested and overseen by admin Nick-D, to settle the dispute on the Battle of Kursk article once and for all. All you need to do this time around is to place your vote for whichever version you think is preferable. The LINK EyeTruth (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

why did you declined my request?

in our case, discussion was pointless i do not think i can convince him and neither do i think he can convince me, so thats why discussion in poinless, i just need a third opinion is there any other way to get or what should i do?

i do not think we can agree anyway 83.180.179.15 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See here for the explanation of why Wikipedia requires extensive discussion before applying for dispute resolution. (Though I do not believe it to be a problem in your particular case, see here for my suggestions on what to do if the other editor will not discuss.) You have, however, probably had enough discussion to satisfy the requirements for a request for comments; if you wish to do that follow the instructions there to make the request and then and wait 30 days to see what comments are made by the community. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

re: Sheldrake dispute

You read my mind concerning the Sheldrake dispute. I had read the dispute summary, and the linked talkpages (as well as other evidence the parties offered as part of the initial filing), and I concluded that this might have been a conduct dispute. I wasn't 100% sure, so that's why I asked the parties for evidence as to why this should be considered under DRN rules. It does seem a bit stupid if the parties then state in their discussions that this is a conduct dispute. Had you not closed it first, I would have pointed them in the direction of ANI etc anyway, so thanks for catching it before me.

By the way, I'm thinking of mediating the "anti-Serb sentiment" dispute, but it looks too complex for me to hand alone (it gets a bit fiddly to keep track of more than three different users, especially when argument is so nuanced as this). Do you mind assisting in the workload on that dispute? --The Historian (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be tied up with RW issues over the next few days and don't know how much time I'll have to contribute, so I'd best decline (and I'm not too keen on ethnic disputes to begin with). You might ask Steven Zhang or Hasteur, however, as they've both been around DRN recently. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Relax (song)#Adding back unofficial titles of the song in lede?

Thanks for the Third Opinion. While I reluctantly agreed to never re-insert the passage again, what about adding sources as External Links? --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I replied at the article page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3O

I don't think simply removing his user name is "neutralizing" it, considering it's still full of ad hominem attacks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)